Some years ago, I watched a screening of a film about Daniel Ellsberg
and the release of the Pentagon Papers. The film was shown in the U.S.
Capitol, and Ellsberg was present, along with others, to discuss the
movie and take questions afterwards.

I've just read Chris Hayes' new book "Twilight of the Elites," and am
reminded of the question that progressive blogger and then-Congressman
Alan Grayson staffer Matt Stoller asked Ellsberg.

What, Stoller wanted to know, should one do when (following the 2003
invasion of Iraq) one has come to the realization that the New York
Times cannot be trusted?

- Advertisement -

The first thing I thought to myself upon hearing this was, of course,
"Holy f---, why would anyone have ever trusted the New York Times?" In
fact I had already asked a question about the distance we'd traveled
from 1971, when the New York Times had worried about the potential shame
of having failed to publish a story, to 2005 when the New York Times
publicly explained that it had sat on a major story (about warrantless
spying) out of fear of the shame of publishing it.

But the reality is that millions of people have trusted and do trust,
in various ways and to various degrees, the New York Times and worse.
Ellsberg's response to Stoller was that his was an extremely important
question and one that he, Ellsberg, had never been asked before.

It's a question that Hayes asks in his book, which can be read well
together with Chris Hedges' "Death of the Liberal Class." Hedges' book
goes back further in U.S. history to chart the demise of liberal
institutions from academia to media to labor. Hayes stays more current
and also more conceptual, perhaps more thought-provoking.

- Advertisement -

Hayes charts a growing disillusionment with authorities of all
variety: government, media, doctors, lawyers, bankers. We've learned
that no group can be blindly trusted. "The cascade of elite failure,"
writes Hayes, "has discredited not only elites and our central
institutions, but the very mental habits we use to form our beliefs
about the world. At the same time, the Internet has produced an
unprecedented amount of information to sort through and radically
expanded the arduous task of figuring out just whom to trust." Hayes
calls this "disorienting."

While I have benefitted from Hayes' brilliant analysis, I just can't
bring myself to feel disoriented. I can, however, testify to the
presence of this feeling in others. When I speak publicly, I'm often
asked questions about how to avoid this disorientation. I spoke recently
about the need to correct much of what the corporate media was saying
about Iran, and a woman asked me how I could choose which sources of
news reporting to trust. I replied that it is best to watch for
verifiable specifics reported by multiple sources, to begin by
questioning the unstated assumptions in a story, to study history so
that facts don't appear in a vacuum, and to not blindly trust or reject
any sources -- the same reporter or outlet or article could have
valuable information mixed in with trash. Such critical media
consumption may not be easy to do after a full day's work, I'll grant
you. But it's not any harder to do than reading the New York Times and
performing the mental gymnastics required to get what you've read to
match up with the world you live in.

The most serious danger that Hayes highlights as arising from a
decline in trust for authorities lies in the large percentage of
Americans who disbelieve in global warming:

"The challenge of climate change forces us to stare into
the dark void left by the collapse of traditional institutional
authority. One democratic political operative I know calls this feature
of modern public life 'post-truth politics.' Without some central
institutions that have the inclination, resources, and reputational
capital to patrol the boundaries of truth, we really do risk a kind of
Hobbesian chaos, in which truth is overtaken by sheer will-to-power."

Now I'm reminded of Albert Camus lamenting the demise of religious
dogma. Oh my goodness! If we can't blindly believe as permanent fact
whatever some ancient book or robed preacher has to say, all will be
absurdity. My gosh, we'll have to . . . (oh, the horror!) think for ourselves!

Hayes is 100% right to highlight the danger of the destruction of the
atmosphere. Of course, even if 95% of Americans admitted to the facts
(as no doubt they will at some point, possibly when it's too late),
barring major concerted action -- as opposed to mere belief -- by at
least 1 or 2 percent of us, our government would proceed merrily along
its destructive way. But can we get to that 95% agreement mark by
persuading people to trust authority?

- Advertisement -

I think people are listening to authorities -- they're just the wrong
ones. Rather than listening to scientists about science, they're
listening to jackasses with radio shows who know nothing about science.
Back in the heyday of belief in authorities (whenever that was) people
didn't always listen to scientists about evolution; many preferred to
listen to charismatic charlatans rejecting evolution. Perhaps as much
as restoring a willingness to trust authorities, we need to instill a
desire to learn from would-be authorities enough to judge which ones
deserve our trust on matters beyond our own comprehension or direct
knowledge.

Climate change is not theoretical. There is evidence that can be
shown to people, if they can get beyond the rejection of pointy-headed
scientists that Hayes notes, and if they can also get beyond the
religious belief that humans couldn't harm the earth if they tried, not
to mention the religious belief that harming the earth is unimportant or
desirable.

Climate change increasingly can be shown to people
up-close-and-personal. And when it can't, the magic of video and
photography can show it to us from elsewhere on the planet. Learning to
look beyond the borders of the United States would do as much for our
society as trusting intellectuals would.

David Swanson is the author of "When the World Outlawed War," "War Is A Lie" and "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union." He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and works for the online (more...)